"All roads lead to Nuremberg," Philippe Sands (London, 1960) often says, one of the leading European specialists in International Law. A professor at University College London, Sands has been involved in some of the most important cases tried in The Hague: the Croatia vs. Serbia process related to crimes in Yugoslavia, the genocide in Rwanda, the persecution of the Rohingya minority in Myanmar... All of them started with Nuremberg, where the concepts of genocide (coined by the Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin) and crimes against humanity (developed by Hersch Lauterpacht) were established. In his now canonical East West Street (2016), Sands analyzed the consequences of the Holocaust, initiating a trilogy on the atrocities of Nazism that now closes, almost 10 years later, with London Street 38 (Anagrama, like all his books), in which he draws a parallel between the Pinochet case and the escape of an SS officer to Chilean Patagonia.
What remains today of the Nuremberg legacy?
Eighty years after Nuremberg, the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants against the presidents of Russia and Israel. However, there is clearly a problem with the enforcement of the law. Is international law dead? No. Although we are experiencing a setback and facing significant challenges, with a xenophobic and nationalist context causing much disruption. Many states or political leaders do not want to submit to the restrictions of international rules. "The only language we all have in common is that of international law" is a phrase from Aung San Suu Kyi when she testified in court for the Gambia v. Myanmar case. I didn't like much what she said, but that phrase is very interesting. No country considers that laws should be eliminated.
The ideas of Nuremberg deeply marked the 20th century. But do they serve the 21st century?
Most international laws work very well all the time, silently, without publicity. Obviously, the rules created in 1945 need to be reviewed and updated. There are absurd situations. For example, why are France and the United Kingdom permanent members of the Security Council? Neither India, South Africa, nor Brazil are... The institutional structure, frankly, is not suitable for its purpose and needs to be restructured. There are also areas where laws are inadequate: the International Criminal Court does not have the capacity to address environmental crimes. And that is outrageous for younger generations.
Is there a gap between the legal definition and what the average citizen understands of concepts like genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes?
Absolutely. There are three international crimes and all are at the same level, there is no hierarchy in the legal system. No act is more terrible just because it is called genocide. But over time, the concept of genocide has emerged in the collective consciousness as if it were the crime of crimes. The public focus is that the killing of a large number of people will always be considered genocide. However, the International Court of Justice restricts the definition to a very limited number of cases where there is an intent to destroy a group in whole or in part.
In 2023, South Africa accused Israel of genocide in Gaza. Will it succeed?
In relation to the same acts in Gaza, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court chose to charge Netanyahu and Gallant, his Defense Minister, for war crimes and crimes against humanity, not for genocide. We have to wait and see what the courts decide.
In 2024, you defended the self-determination of Palestine and the ruling of The Hague was harsh: it declared the Israeli occupation illegal since 1967. Despite the symbolism of the resolution, what are the practical effects?
It is an authoritative statement of the law and over time it will have consequences. Some countries, including Spain, are pleased with that decision. Others like the United States and perhaps the United Kingdom are not as comfortable. It is not just symbolic, it's that certain countries are not implementing it immediately. And these are things that take time, sometimes many, many years.
You often say that justice is a long-term game... But how long?
I would say that, in terms of history, 80 years is a very short time. When I was a young researcher at Cambridge, there was a professor of English Legal History, Sir John Baker, who would sometimes invite me to lunch and ask, 'What are you working on?' I would tell him, and he would say, 'Ah, yes. We had a problem like this in English law in 1472. And it took 275 years to resolve.'
So is International Justice still in its infancy?
1945 was an absolutely revolutionary moment. It created a new playing field with a system based on international rules. It recognized rights for individuals, crimes against humanity, and human rights. It recognized rights for groups, genocide. For the first time in human history, international law established that the rights of the State, the president, the king and queen, the emperor, are not unlimited. And it will take decades, if not centuries, for the consequences of that to unfold.
In your latest book, you address the Pinochet case, also emblematic. For the first time, a head of state was detained in a foreign country at the request of a third country, Spain. But he ended up dying at his home in Chile, without being tried...
When he died, he was under house arrest, facing several charges. He could not walk the streets of his city. That is not insignificant... The Pinochet case was another revolutionary moment in terms of justice. In the two rulings of the British House of Lords, the first established that Pinochet had no immunity. It was a big leap. The second ruling, in March 1999, clarified that he lost immunity only for a small category of cases. And I believe the second decision is more sustainable. I am in favor of evolution rather than revolution, although some are necessary in exceptional situations, like 1945 or 1789 [Sands also has French origins]. I think the system is fragile now. We need to protect it with gradual developments rather than giant leaps.
In July 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Donald Trump's total immunity, with six votes against three. The dissenting judges warned that a "king above the law" was being created. What should be the limit of immunity?
The ruling of the Supreme Court is very concerning. It establishes an absolute presumption of immunity for any official act. Does any official act include torture, disappearance, or genocide? They have also not considered that if a U.S. president commits an international crime and has absolute immunity in his country, that allows courts from other parts of the world to exercise jurisdiction. That's what happened with Pinochet. Since 1945, we live in a world even more interconnected and the international consequences cannot be excluded. At the same time, the International Criminal Court has also arrested the former president of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, accused of crimes against humanity in his war on drugs. It is a very uneven landscape and creates confusion. But despite the efforts of some leaders to get rid of international rules, they will not succeed.
Not even Trump? Who threatens to leave the UN and NATO...
He is not capable. Some actions of President Trump reflect a position of weakness rather than strength. The United States is weaker today than four months ago. Confidence in the country has declined, it is not seen as a reliable partner. I would say that all roads lead to Nuremberg. But the roads from Nuremberg are long and treacherous. And they lead to places that we cannot know precisely.